Homosexual civil unions

[MaxTH]

from wikipedia; “The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done—an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn’t a slippery slope fallacy.”

so how exactly did you get from gay to dad to lawnmower?

Sorry, but you don’t really believe “Wikipedia” to be some sort of rebuttal do you?
Abortion opponents said that if abortion was made legal in the first trimester it would lead to abortion being legal in the second, and then in the third, and now eventually leading to partial birth abortion.

The fact of the matter is, and the reason the pro-homosexual sodomy is a marriage group have not addressed the argument honestly, is because they know quite well that if gender is arbitrary, than everything is arbitrary. There simply is no denying or refuting that, and they know it.

 

[z0wb13]

@MaxTH: you seem very passionate, but you still have to use facts and logic build a strong argument. i will try to point out some shortcomings in your argument, but be assured i mean no disrespect to you or your beliefs.

if you make an assertion, you have to back it up with evidence, meaning that the burden of proof rests with you. or, you can poke holes in my logic or facts. any other tactics will be largely ignored in a serious debate.

Sorry, but you don’t really believe “Wikipedia” to be some sort of rebuttal do you?

you did not make a logical connection from gay to day to lawnmower. so you committed a slippery slope fallacy. if you could connect those things together in a meaningful way, it would be logically valid, but you did not.

Those who suffer from homosexual orientation disorder are not a “people”.
Homosexuality is no more the other side of the coin from heterosexuality than any other sexual deviancy.

the idea that gay people are deviants is not supported by the medical community. the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, stating that “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities.”

And if it goes against God’s law, then under what authority do you claim to call something “right”?

and

Simply put, there is what God intended, and then there is everything else.

this is an appeal to authority. it is a fallacy of defective induction. if i told you that the great juju of the mountain said it was okay for gay people to marry, you wouldn’t think that was a very compelling argument. and you would do so rightly. but it’s also the reason that invoking god on your side doesn’t convince me.

and to reiterate, you did make an appeal to popularity by saying that there were 32 state referendums on the topic, implying this should bolster your argument. but it does not logically follow.

homosexual sodomy is conduct, and pretty damn disgusting conduct at that. To be so vile as to sodomize, or desire to be sodomized by another man, to be so without any honor or dignity, what kind of hell must that be?

well, there’s no accounting for taste. but you are making a fallacious appeal to emotion. if you thought that chocolate was gross, that wouldn’t convince me to eat vanilla.

Your statement above about “most evidence” simply means that you in fact know that there is evidence that children raised by homosexuals do not in fact turn out the same.

the vast majority of mainstream evidence supports my claim, but i would be disingenuous if i said that all research did. there studies which have claimed that astrology and dowsing are real, but the vast majority of evidence refutes this. however, you have asserted that children raised by gay parents turn out a certain way, so the burden of proof lies with you.

Well first off, statistically speaking, no group is more promiscuous than homosexuals. That point cannot not even be debated.

i have conceded the fact. but you have not made a logical connection between this information and why it should preclude gay marriage. no other group is denied marriage rights for being too promiscuous, so you are applying a double standard. under the constitution, no state may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (14th amendment).”

And unless I missed it, you have not demonstrated where you believe this supposed “right” exists for those who engage in homosexual acts to same gender “marry”

my argument comes in two parts. first, the supreme court has affirmed marriage to be a fundamental right, see here here and here. second, the 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law. to make a challenge in court, a person needs to have standing, or be able to prove that they are adversely affected by a certain law or policy. i have linked to a long list of legal and financial protections that are afforded to married people, here. to deny gay people the protections of marriage is a violation of their civil rights.

i am sincerely looking forward to a reasoned and logical response. please don’t take my comments as condescension. they are not, but sometimes it is difficult to convey the correct tone over correspondence.

 

[MaxTH]

if you make an assertion, you have to back it up with evidence, meaning that the burden of proof rests with you.

The assertion was made that children raised in single parent homes, or by homosexuals, fair no worse than those raised by a mother and father. What evidence have you put forth to support your claim?

or, you can poke holes in my logic or facts.

I can only be honest with you and say that I don’t see any logic, and no supportable facts.
I see only claims and personal unsupported opinion.

you did not make a logical connection from gay to day to lawnmower. so you committed a slippery slope fallacy.

Like others, I reject the “slipper slope is a fallacy” contention. It can be, but that in no way makes it a universal. When the Church said that contraceptives would lead to abortion it was a slippery slope argument, so was when some leaders said allowing Hitler to reoccupy Alsace and Lorraine would lead to another war on the European continent. So slippery slope argumentation cannot be dismissed out of hand because of some entry on Wikipedia.

the idea that gay people are deviants is not supported by the medical community.

In fact the medical community does list homosexuality as a deviation in human sexuality. Although it does not use the term deviant anymore, the word deviation is still used.

the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, stating that “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities.”

And if they did again list it as such would you accept their findings? The fact is that there are some in the APA that do not consider sexual inclinations between men and boys to be an impairment as well, but what of it? And while certainly now a minority, there are still professionals in the field as well as researchers who consider homosexuality a disorder. In fact, the man most responsible for removing homosexuality from the list said a few years ago that based on his further research there is at least some cases where the orientation can be cured, although he did not use that exact word.
I would also point out that at that almost at the same time that homosexual orientation was removed from the list of disorders, many in the field started publicly entertaining the notion that belief in God might be a disorder and impairment.
Whatever else you might say or believe, please to not cheapen the debate by putting forth the notion that the psychiatry has not become political.

and to reiterate, you did make an appeal to popularity by saying that there were 32 state referendums on the topic, implying this should bolster your argument. but it does not logically follow.

Does not follow what? The statement was that the majority of people, and even non-religious people, reject the notions that men sodomizing each other could ever possibly be a marriage. That truth does not have to logically follow anything, it stands on it’s own merit and cannot be refuted.

well, there’s no accounting for taste. but you are making a fallacious appeal to emotion. if you thought that chocolate was gross, that wouldn’t convince me to eat vanilla.

With that you could argue that while necrophilia is ‘distasteful’ for some, pointing out exactly what it is to people is only a fallacious appeal to emotion. Not really.
It is simply reminding people of exactly what we are talking about. This is why abortion supporters so hate the use of images of aborted children. Also, I would say that in fact there is an accounting for taste, in the same way there is an accounting for everything.

the vast majority of mainstream evidence supports my claim, but i would be disingenuous if i said that all research did.

What claim is that exactly, and what “mainstream evidence” have you submitted that supports your claim?

i have conceded the fact. but you have not made a logical connection between this information and why it should preclude gay marriage. no other group is denied marriage rights for being too promiscuous, so you are applying a double standard. under the constitution, no state may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (14th amendment).”

Any person can marry a member of the opposite sex, if they are not already married, and not 1st degree related to that person. The fact that some people do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex simply means they do not want to get married. What they want is not what marriage is, so they seek to change it’s meaning into something that it never has meant, in all of human history. And there is no double standard because those who make the choice to engage in homosexual acts are not a group in the same way African Americans are a group. The homosexual lobby wants everyone to think that, but the overwhelming majority of Africans reject that nonsensical contention, as I reject it.

i am sincerely looking forward to a reasoned and logical response. please don’t take my comments as condescension. they are not, but sometimes it is difficult to convey the correct tone over correspondence.

And I too would like to state that if my responses seem condescending it is not my intention. Here’s the thing, if God exists then there can be no such thing as “gay marriage rights”. If God does not exist you then would have to explain how philosophical materialism can somehow create and support metaphysical principles.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

i’ll concede your facts. but what connection is there to then denying marriage rights? …

Why should gay relationships, known and even admitted by gay researchers like Spears and Lowen to be unstable and non-monogamous, which you have conceded, need civil “marriage”? Civil unions and domestic partnerships already address major and practical issues related to rights and benefits, and they are still being expanded. I think full equivalency of rights and benefits will be reached between homosexual civil unions/domestic partnerships and civil marriages, but gay activists just want a beeline to gay “marriage” to which most of society believes to be an unacceptable social experiment which the state should not decide in favor of a minority that loudly but erroneously claims it as a civil right.

In an earlier post, you claim that denying gay couples to marry would hurt their children (that they have presumably adopted or created by gestational surrogacy). You then provided a cut/paste of a 40-item list of financial rights, benefits and protections that gay couples, depending on where they reside, may not have all in the list, as with traditional married couples. You will note that a good portion of the list has to do with parenting right issues.

I submit to you that interests of children would be harmed by unstable, non-monogamous gay “marriages”, with children already in an outside-the-norm home environment of having same-sex parents to begin with. We obviously are diametrically opposed on this but I believe that such a home environment leads to a confusing and negative value-forming early life for kids in which to grow up.

The point is having and raising children is the essence of family and the main reason that a man and a woman marry, notwithstanding the incidence of couples with a problem with sterility or not wanting children when they do marry. Don’t bother bringing up single unmarried women with children and high divorce rates, which are likewise not ideal home environments in raising children. That is just meant to diffuse, but does not address the issue of unstable gay relationships being far from the ideal home life in raising children. Don’t tell me to look ‘over there’ because you don’t want me to look ‘here.’

if catholics want to think one thing or another is a sin, that’s their prerogative. but why should everyone else have to live by those rules, especially when catholics are a minority (~22%) in the US?. …

You don’t think that only Catholics view homosexual behavior as wrong, do you?

that “piece” that you linked to is more like a short book. i haven’t read all of it, admittedly. but here are somethings that caught my eye:
this is demonstrably false, and it is basically the heart of the argument. massachusetts, gay marriage ground zero, has a lower divorce rate than states that have enacted bans on gay marriage.
…

Interesting correlation, I agree, but does it prove gay “marriage” is the cause of lower divorce rate?

…there have been gay people for as long as we know, and there are gay animals besides people. so if you are going to use some definition of “natural” that i’m not familiar with, …

I am not disproving that there have been homosexuals for a long time. 2 – 3% of the population being homosexual for as long as we know is not a justification for gay “marriage.”

As for “natural” and gay animals, let me offer researcher Luis Sergio Solimeo’s words:

*If seemingly ‘homosexual’ acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?..

The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality… The fact that man has a body and sensitive life in common with animals does not mean he is strictly an animal. Nor does it mean that he is a half-animal. Man’s rationality pervades the wholeness of his nature so that his sensations, instincts and impulses are not purely animal but have that seal of rationality which characterizes them as human.

Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man’s rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature.*

there is no qualification that marriages have to be only for the purpose of procreation. people in prison are allowed to get married, and if there are no conjugal visits, there is no consummation. but the supreme court protects this kind of marriage.

We know that non-Christians like you do not share the belief that true marriage is always open to procreation of children.

But in the example, which is not the best you can make, I would imagine that the few individuals in prison who choose to marry are still male and female, not of the same sex. Of course, there are currently six or seven states where same-sex “marriage” is allowed, but I don’t hear of homosexuals in prison take it that far, i.e., to undergo same-sex civil marriage in said states. It is evident that it is gays outside prison who take it that far and push gay “marriage” – to legitimize the homosexual act, which they are free to engage in without the gay “marriage” label.

It is disingenuous to say that pushing for gay “marriage” is really for children’s sake which they are unable to have by natural design, and that those who agree on bans on gay “marriage” hurt the children. Don’t blame this on society. Marriage between one man and one woman was and is meant to be by our Creator, regardless of unbelief by you and some people.

Peace.
,

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Rights are made by God, not men. Morals are defined by God, not men. If someone or some group is demanding that men give them rights or redefine morality, they are asking the incorrect entity and they are really asking for something else such as license.

Men cannot give or define that which they have no authority to give or define.

 

[z0wb13]

MaxTH: I can only be honest with you and say that I don’t see any logic, and no supportable facts. I see only claims and personal unsupported opinion.

i guess this would be an argument from personal incredulity. i’ll say it again as briefly as possible: marriage is a fundamental right; the 14th amendment ensures equal rights; denying gays the right to get married violates their civil rights. i have posted links to court cases, empirical research and other material in my previous posts. perhaps you honestly missed it; let me know and i’ll source it again. and if part of this doesn’t make sense to you, please specify what and i’ll do my best to explain it.

MaxTH: The assertion was made that children raised in single parent homes, or by homosexuals, fair no worse than those raised by a mother and father. What evidence have you put forth to support your claim?

it was not asserted that children raised in single parent homes fair no worse than those headed by two parents. regarding children raised by gay parents, the evidence is overwhelming that there is no statistically significant difference in outcomes. google it yourself if you don’t believe me, but here’s an abstract from an abstract. i’m going to consider the matter decided unless you come up with something compelling to refute it, like 23 studies claiming the opposite.
Twenty–three empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers were reviewed… The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done.

MaxTH: In fact, the man most responsible for removing homosexuality from the list said a few years ago that based on his further research there is at least some cases where the orientation can be cured, although he did not use that exact word.

what man? what words did he use? when was it said and in what context? all of this is important in determining the weight, if any, this statement should carry. as it stands, it is only a highly dubious assertion. if you can source this, that’s one thing, but again it’s still just one man’s opinion weighed against nearly the entire medical community. besides that, it smells fishy, like it never happened at all. i’m not impugning your integrity, it just has that urban legend feeling about it.

MaxTH: Like others, I reject the “slipper slope is a fallacy” contention. It can be, but that in no way makes it a universal.

true, but only if you can logically connect the things you are talking about is it logically valid. if there is no connection, it is invalid, and you have made no attempt to connect “gay” to “dad” to “lawnmower”. gay marriage is different from polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia and all of the other unfair comparisons that are often made. if you can connect them all together, and show how one will necessarily lead to the other, that’s fine. but you haven’t even tried to, and citing other instances of slippery slopes that were logically connected does not make this one valid.

but you can’t just reject it out of hand, that’s not how debate works. it’s like if there were a baseball game being played, and someone ran out to the field and tackled the pitcher. “Touchdown, I win!” this doesn’t mean that person won, it means they don’t even know what sport they’re playing.

MaxTH: If God does not exist you then would have to explain how philosophical materialism can somehow create and support metaphysical principles.

no, i don’t. marriage is a legally recognized union of two people. the law doesn’t need any metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to operate. now, maybe that marriage won’t be recognized in heaven, but this discussion is on civil law. i’ll leave metaphysics to the professionals;p

MaxTH: Whatever else you might say or believe, please to not cheapen the debate by putting forth the notion that the psychiatry has not become political.

huh? how am i cheapening the debate? you brought it up, not me, so the burden of proof lies with you. also, this smacks of an ad hominem, which is a common tactic when one doesn’t want to discuss the actual topic of debate, generally because their position is so weak;p

@MaxTH: if you want to debate the topic, that’s fine, but leave me out of it, not because i care, but because it doesn’t support your position. so far, you have not addressed any part of my argument (which is a constitutional argument), and you have not provided any evidence (besides your personal feelings) to support any of your positions. besides that, hardly any of your arguments actually address why gay marriage should be banned. as far as i can tell, you think that: 1. god doesn’t want it that way, 2. it’s gross, 3. it’s bad for children, 4. it will lead to pedophilia/polygamy/bestiality. to that i would say 1. this is about civil law, not anything else, 2. who cares?, 3. wrong, there is a mountain of evidence refuting your assertion, 4. prove it, and i’ll believe it, but until then it’s just conjecture.

if i’m misstating your positions, please correct me. and if you want to address my argument, then do so. but quit changing the discussion to things unrelated to the topic. if you want to do that, start a new thread or get on another one. this thread is about gay civil unions, not metaphysics or canon law. lot’s of people will discuss that with you, but i’m not interested in that stuff, and i don’t know much about it so you won’t get anything interesting from talking to me;p

 

[z0wb13]

InSearchOfGrace: I think full equivalency of rights and benefits will be reached between homosexual civil unions/domestic partnerships and civil marriages, but gay activists just want a beeline to gay “marriage” to which most of society believes to be an unacceptable social experiment which the state should not decide in favor of a minority that loudly but erroneously claims it as a civil right.

marriage is a civil right, but whatever. the problem with “separate but equal” is the same as it has always been. but if somehow they could be the same, why not just call a spade a spade and have done with it? really, if there where no differences, then it would be the same thing, so calling things by two different names would just be confusing.

but the practical reason not to do this is so that public entities might adopt the language like “such and such benefit extends to a married spouse.” and if gay people weren’t married, they only had a civil union, then it could be argued that such and such benefit will not be extended to a gay spouse.

and history shows that separate but equal doesn’t work. that’s my main point against why the civil union language shouldn’t be used, and the government shouldn’t bother making distinctions between different classes of marriage.

I submit to you that interests of children would be harmed by unstable, non-monogamous gay “marriages”, with children already in an outside-the-norm home environment of having same-sex parents to begin with. We obviously are diametrically opposed on this but I believe that such a home environment leads to a confusing and negative value-forming early life for kids in which to grow up.

the difference between our positions is that evidence supports mine. but i don’t think most gay people raising children are in unstable, non-monogamous relationships. i would think that if that were the case, it would be bad for children, and that it would then be reflected in research. and then it would lend a ton of weight to your position.

another thing is that you are defining values that are different from your own as negative. whatever, you can think what you want, but while somebody might say the same thing about your value system, it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t be allowed to raise children. there has to be some very compelling reason to say that a certain value system should be unacceptable, like that irrefutable harm will come to the children or something like that. in the case of gay parents, the children generally turn out fine.

InSearchOfGrace: Interesting correlation [between gay marriage and divorce rates], I agree, but does it prove gay “marriage” is the cause of lower divorce rate?

no, correlation is not causation. i put that up to refute the contention that allowing gay marriage would somehow be the final nail in the coffin of marriage as a whole. it doesn’t seem that way.

it could be that in places where there is more acceptance of gay people, there is less homophobia, because there is more education, so there is less poverty. there is an even stronger correlation between poverty and divorce rates. so i’m not claiming to know with total certainty that allowing gay marriages seems to strengthen the institution of marriage in general, but it would make some sense.

Grace: We know that non-Christians like you do not share the belief that true marriage is always open to procreation of children.

the test of a legally recognized marriage is not whether it is open to procreation or not, that is a religious requirement. the topic is about civil law.

why should any religious group get to dictate who gets what rights? it could have turned out very differently. look at the middle east. there, people live under a theocracy were people are forced to follow religious laws.

2 – 3% of the population being homosexual for as long as we know is not a justification for gay “marriage.”

there are probably more gay people than you realize. regardless, your argument seems to be that a minority shouldn’t be protected if it’s a small enough minority. that doesn’t make sense! where would we draw the line?

Grace: It is disingenuous to say that pushing for gay “marriage” is really for children’s sake which they are unable to have by natural design, and that those who agree on bans on gay “marriage” hurt the children. Don’t blame this on society. Marriage between one man and one woman was and is meant to be by our Creator, regardless of unbelief by you and some people.

it’s not disingenuous. gay people have children of their own, often from previous marriages. and they might have children any number of ways, whether it conforms to your definition of natural or not. but the whole “that’s what god wants” argument rings hollow for me. how can lowly people ever really understand an omnipotent God?

God used to endorse polygamy, but he doesn’t anymore, apparently. the OT didn’t change, people’s earthly attitudes did. i know that polygamy is a sin in the NT, but jesus didn’t mention it, so let’s drop it because the point is still valid. there are many other instances of things that are no longer acceptable (e.g., slavery) that are due to people’s evolving morality and have nothing to do with a morality that was handed down from on high by the angels, or whatever.

but lastly, on your “creator” argument. why do unbelievers, like buddhists, have to follow these rules? some buddhist sects sanction gay marriages, so if you want the laws to respect one religion, shouldn’t they have to respect them all? i mean by necessity. if laws could cherry pick which religions to respect, couldn’t the catholic church be banned just as easily as the mormon church, or any religion? the only thing stopping it would be popular opinion, which is fickle, and sometimes biased or even hysterical. it’s not the best way to make decisions all the time.

 

[z0wb13]

Rights are made by God, not men. Morals are defined by God, not men.

how can this be the case? if it were so, then morality would be eternal and unchanging. but morality is not. check the OT. in it, god defends the morality of monarchies, owning slaves, polygamy, genocide, infanticide, and many other things that nobody takes seriously in the modern western world.

in america, our rights come from the bill of rights and the constitution. and even those rights have been changed and updated to reflect modern concerns. if you need to test this out, try stoning someone to death for any of the reasons listed in the OT, and then see how well it turns out as a legal defense. i’m kidding, of course; don’t actually do this.

 

[Elizabeth502]

“Endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights…”

Hmmm. I wonder which “religious” document that came from?

Hint: None.

 

[z0wb13]

“Endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights…”

Hmmm. I wonder which “religious” document that came from?

Hint: None.

that’s from the declaration of independence. it is not a legal document. however, the DoI also makes it clear that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods.

to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

 

[InSearchofGrace]

marriage is a civil right, but whatever. the problem with “separate but equal” is the same as it has always been. but if somehow they could be the same, why not just call a spade a spade and have done with it? really, if there where no differences, then it would be the same thing, so calling things by two different names would just be confusing. …

Same Sex Marriage is NOT a Civil Right

…
the difference between our positions is that evidence supports mine. but i don’t think most gay people raising children are in unstable, non-monogamous relationships. i would think that if that were the case, it would be bad for children, and that it would then be reflected in research. and then it would lend a ton of weight to your position.

another thing is that you are defining values that are different from your own as negative. whatever, you can think what you want, but while somebody might say the same thing about your value system, it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t be allowed to raise children. there has to be some very compelling reason to say that a certain value system should be unacceptable, like that irrefutable harm will come to the children or something like that. in the case of gay parents, the children generally turn out fine.

What evidence do you speak of? Let me guess, they are from the APA which under pressure by the gay lobby dropped the diagnosis of homosexuality as a disorder. The social experiment of gay adoption and children being raised by gay couples is relatively new, so to say that there is already evidence that research shows that children of gay parents generally turn out fine is premature.

Here is an account of Dawn Stefanowicz who clearly disagrees with you that gay couples should raise children.

Excerpt

What is the most suitable environment for children to be born or adopted into? The many personal, professional and social experiences with my father did not teach me respect for morality, authority, marriage, and paternal love. I felt fearfully silenced as I was not allowed to talk about my dad, his male housemates, his lifestyle and encounters within the subcultures without being browbeaten and threatened by my father. While I lived at home, I had to live by his rules. Yes, I loved my dad. However, I felt abandoned and neglected as my needs were not met since my father would often leave suddenly to be with his partners for days. His partners were not really interested in me. I was outraged at the incidences of same-sex domestic abuse, sexual advances toward minors, and loss of sexual partners as if people were only commodities. I sought comfort looking for my father’s love from boyfriends starting at 12 years old.

From a young age, I was exposed to explicit sexual speech, self-indulgent lifestyles, varied GLBT subcultures and gay vacation spots. Sex looked gratuitous to me as a child. I was exposed to all inclusive manifestations of sexuality including bathhouse sex, cross-dressing, sodomy, pornography, gay nudity, lesbianism, bisexuality, minor recruitment, voyeurism and exhibitionism. Sado-masochism was alluded to and aspects demonstrated. Alcohol and drugs were often contributing factors to lower inhibitions in my father’s relationships.

My father prized unisex dressing, gender-neutral aspects and a famous cross-dressing icon when I was eight years old. I did not see the value of biological complementing differences of male and female or think about marriage. I made vows to never have children since I had not grown up in a safe, sacrificial, child-centered home environment. Due to my life experience, I ask, “Can children really perform their best academically, financially, psychologically, socially and behaviorally in experimental situations?” I can tell you that I suffered long term in this situation, and this has been professionally documented.

Over two decades of direct exposure to these stressful experiences caused me insecurity, depression, suicidal thoughts, dread, anxiousness, low self-esteem, sleeplessness and sexuality confusion. My conscience and innocence were seriously damaged. I witnessed that every other family member suffered severely as well.

[con’t]
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

[con’t]

…the test of a legally recognized marriage is not whether it is open to procreation or not, that is a religious requirement. the topic is about civil law.

why should any religious group get to dictate who gets what rights? it could have turned out very differently. look at the middle east. there, people live under a theocracy were people are forced to follow religious laws.

Marriage is something people of all faiths and no faith engage in. Churches, synagogues, and mosques may bless marriages but they do not create the institution. In that sense the question of marriage is not first of all a religious matter in the sense in which most people use the word “religion.”

Nobody is campaigning for theocracy in this country. But we should not forget that the founding fathers drew on Judeo-Christian principles and most in society do not believe in a value-neutral world that embraces gay “marriage.”

there are probably more gay people than you realize. regardless, your argument seems to be that a minority shouldn’t be protected if it’s a small enough minority. that doesn’t make sense! where would we draw the line?

Minorities and minority rights ARE protected in this country. The 2 – 3% we are talking about, or more, as you are implying, represented by its gay activists are pushing an agenda contrary to the values of society that has benefited from time-held, age-old structure of traditional families, regardless of failed marriages.

it’s not disingenuous. gay people have children of their own, often from previous marriages. and they might have children any number of ways, whether it conforms to your definition of natural or not. …

Yeah, like Dawn Stefanowicz.

but lastly, on your “creator” argument. why do unbelievers, like buddhists, have to follow these rules? some buddhist sects sanction gay marriages, so if you want the laws to respect one religion, shouldn’t they have to respect them all? i mean by necessity. if laws could cherry pick which religions to respect, couldn’t the catholic church be banned just as easily as the mormon church, or any religion? the only thing stopping it would be popular opinion, which is fickle, and sometimes biased or even hysterical. it’s not the best way to make decisions all the time.

It can be argued that it is the gay ‘marriage’ crowd that is biased and hysterical, with all its blanket cries of homophobia and bigotry against those against gay ‘marriage.’

As for laws, our world (U.S. and Western Europe), they are decidedly secular, whereby no particular religion should be favored. However, no law or government should be an instrument by a vocal minority to re-define ‘marriage.’

As postulated, gay activists have already achieved homosexual civil unions, which is not enough even as this particular subset of family law is being expanded to address the increasing demands of the gay crowd.

Some Buddhist and Taoist sects approve of gay marriages (those in the West), just as in certain Christian denominations, e.g., Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Metropolitan Community Church, Religious Society of Friends (Quaker), etc.

How are the adherents of these sects being forced to believe that homosexual sex and marriage are sins by Roman and Eastern Orthodox Catholics, Methodists, fundamental Baptists and Evangelicals, LDS, Jews, Muslims, Jehovahs Witnesses?
,

 

[mackbrislawn]

lucky for me, i don’t have to think about it, because the supreme court has already ruled otherwise. it was first recognized as a “fundamental right” in loving v virginia, and reaffirmed in various other cases after that. so with all due respect, you are wrong.

I don’t think so.

If it’s a “fundamental right” then all legal impediments to marriage are also thereby voided. Has loving v virginia been interpreted that way? If not, why not, if it is a fundamental right? There are various recognized impediments to marriage, such as already being married, not of the right age, incompetency, too closely related, no license, not resident long enough, certain diseases, and, also, same sex.

Loving v Virginia did not address the same sex impediment, but the mixed races impediment.

But, if marriage is a fundamental right, why now only nullify the same sex impediment? Why stop there? How about the others? If marriage is a “fundamental right” why should the other impediments stand? And, why require a license to do something you have a fundamental right to do? It would seem that would be the logical direction for the courts to take.

The definition of marriage the courts had in mind in Loving v Virginia was that between persons of opposite sex. That’s what they meant by marriage as a “fundamental right.” And it was a right if no other impediments existed!

 

[JaredM]

Personally as long as two people love each other I don’t really care.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Please define “Catholic Lutheran.”

I am not an authority on what Lutherans are committed to believe regarding homosexuality. However, I am clear on what Catholics are expected to believe, and that does not include “not caring, as long as [any] two people love each other.”

 

[davidv]

Personally as long as two people love each other I don’t really care.

Two males, or two females, who love each other as God love us, will not pretend to be married and will not engage in sexual activity.

 

[z0wb13]

I don’t think so.

If it’s a “fundamental right” then all legal impediments to marriage are also thereby voided. Has loving v virginia been interpreted that way? If not, why not, if it is a fundamental right? There are various recognized impediments to marriage, such as already being married, not of the right age, incompetency, too closely related, no license, not resident long enough, certain diseases, and, also, same sex.

some of those reasons listed are correct, others are not. but, there are some significant differences between some of them.

take the age of consent: people recognize that there is a difference between children giving consent and adults giving consent. a child can’t really be expected to make adult decisions, because they don’t have a fully functioning adult brain, which typically does not finish developing until around the age of 25.

the disease thing is mostly wrong. there are some requirements in some states where you have to prove vaccinations for certain diseases. but even if you have a genetic predisposition to something awful, you can still get a marriage license, and many of the medical screening requirements no longer exist. i wish they did, but they don’t.

the already married thing is true. i can’t argue, nor would i want to.

the being too closely related thing is mostly true, when talking about siblings and father daughter type pairings, in other words extremely closely related. but this is clearly due to the potential risk of birth defects and the fact that generally if consent is given, it is under almost necessarily under duress. regarding cousins, the risks of birth defects are only slightly higher (statistically significant, but all couples run some risk of birth defects). in my state of florida and 20 others, it is entirely legal to marry my cousin, unless they are the same gender or a child.

the incompetency thing is kind of true if the person has been declared legally incompetent, but they can still get married with permission from their guardian.

i’m not sure what you mean by “no license.” part of getting married is obtaining a marriage license, so i don’t know how this applies. i also don’t know about being a resident for long enough. you can get married in las vegas even if you don’t reside there, for instance, but i guess it would depend on the state. if you get married outside the country, most states will recognize that marriage, although admittedly i don’t know how it works in every state.

all of those things are different from being gay. the ones that make sense to me (already married, immediate relatives, age of consent) are already banned universally in this country. if i was king, i’d push the age of consent up to 25, but that’s me. as it stands, the age of consent is generally 18 (19 in nebraska), unless you have permission from a parent or guardian.

the reason those make sense is because there are logical reasons. the logic in banning gay marriage is that people hate what they fear, and they fear what they don’t understand. if people don’t understand gay marriage, then by the transitive property they hate it. maybe hate is too strong a word, but that’s the only way i can understand the visceral reaction and personal involvement of people that are against it. like another poster said, if it doesn’t effect you personally, how can you care? i mean really, how? how does a person become so emotionally involved in something that is none of their business?

Loving v Virginia did not address the same sex impediment, but the mixed races impediment.

true. then zablocki v wisconsin (1978) affirmed that a deadbeat who wasn’t paying his child support could get married. and turner v safley (1987) affirmed a person in prison could get married.

so the supreme court hasn’t ruled on gay marriage yet. but there are couples that have been harmed by that sort of discrimination, so hopefully one day it is ruled on.

But, if marriage is a fundamental right, why now only nullify the same sex impediment?

if not now, when? it’s never been ruled on, i think it should be so that the whole issue could be cleared up.

Why stop there? How about the others? If marriage is a “fundamental right” why should the other impediments stand? And, why require a license to do something you have a fundamental right to do? It would seem that would be the logical direction for the courts to take.

there are solid logical reasons why prohibiting marriage between some people makes sense. not all of the impediments that you listed actually exist, but i addressed that earlier. but i think things should proceed on a case by case basis, so that the best outcomes are attained. even if i don’t like the outcome, at least it would be settled.

The definition of marriage the courts had in mind in Loving v Virginia was that between persons of opposite sex. That’s what they meant by marriage as a “fundamental right.” And it was a right if no other impediments existed!

they probably did take it for granted that they were only ruling on straight marriage. but that was two generations ago. gay rights was not a nationally recognized issue back then, but it is now. so now we have to deal with it.

 

[z0wb13]

@Grace; these quotes are from the article that you linked to. you have made many of the same arguments yourself, and were more articulate.

Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about.

and there are material benefits that come along with being married.

If homosexual relationships are… legally recognized as marriages, no realities will change.

this isn’t true. there are many benefits and protections afforded to married couples, exclusively. so it would change things.

And it will mean that when a mature mother and son, or father and daughter, or trio or quartet of partners come to the courts or to the marriage-license bureau to ask that their sexually active relationship be recognized as marriage, there will be no legal grounds of a non-arbitrary kind to reject the requests.

here we see the slippery slope argument again. this author also fails to logically connect the points on that continuum. it should be obvious that two gay adults are rather different from 1 adult and 1 child or more than 2 adults.

A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage.

thus no man who has had a vasectomy may get married. no women with a hysterectomy may get married. this argument has been tried, and it should be obvious why it fails every time.

@Grace: these are quotes from you.

Here is an account of Dawn Stefanowicz who clearly disagrees with you that gay couples should raise children.

you told me a few pages back that “Your “anecdotal” account or experience is just that – anecdotal and therefore unverifiable.” this single example can’t be taken as a refutation of the vast majority of evidence.

What evidence do you speak of? Let me guess, they are from the APA which under pressure by the gay lobby dropped the diagnosis of homosexuality as a disorder.

psychologist Dr John C. Gonsiorek expressed it as, “the political pressure placed on the American Psychiatric Association in the early 1970s was a necessary but not sufficient condition for the depathologizing of homosexuality.”

the APA is a group of doctors. based on their evidence, there was nothing to support the position that being gay was a mental illness. if you don’t want to believe it, you are arguing from incredulity. but i would assume that if a psychologist told you that hearing voices was more likely a symptom of schizophrenia rather than demonic possession, you’d probably be like “okay, doctors know more than i do” and move on to treatment. but for this one issue, you instead try to invent a grand conspiracy.

so yes, i’m basing my claim that children of gay parents turn out alright on studies conducted by the APA, although i also know this anecdotally from my own experience. i’ve had a few friends with gay moms. from what i know personally, all of the boys turned out straight, some of the girls turned out gay. i wouldn’t want to read too much into this, it is very limited in scope, and that’s why i rely on the much larger studies that have been conducted by doctors and scientists.

 

[JaredM]

Please define “Catholic Lutheran.”

I am not an authority on what Lutherans are committed to believe regarding homosexuality. However, I am clear on what Catholics are expected to believe, and that does not include “not caring, as long as [any] two people love each other.”

I was raised and baptized Catholic and a a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. I consider myself 30% Catholic and 70% Lutheran.

I don’t really know what the Catholic Churches views towards homosexuality, but the ELCA is pretty tolerate of them.

huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-cindi-love/the-lutheran-church-embra_b_543142.html

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
@Grace: these are quotes from you.

you told me a few pages back that “Your “anecdotal” account or experience is just that – anecdotal and therefore unverifiable.” this single example can’t be taken as a refutation of the vast majority of evidence.
…

You are right and I concede the point. Dawn S’s is a personal account, not a study. The difference in what you and I are citing is that she went public with her experience and published, whereas your anecdotal experience is anonymous.

Will address your other points in another post.
,